Consumers have voted on WAR. I would interpret the vote as an unmitigated disaster for Mark Jacobs and company.
SWTOR....the voting is still in progress(how do I think it will come out....on a scale of 1-10.10 being the highest....in another year it will be a 5...in 2 years a 3.5)
Not that I'm taking any sides on this debate but you can't say swtor crashed and burned while it has 1.7 millions subs and growing(especially with their 1.2 about to hit).
Lol, now you are just messing with people. 1.7m and growing, boy, are you in for a shock if you are serious.
You can disagree all you want, but Rose Colored Glasses aside, WAR did crash and burn. Something to keep in mind though, there is no such thing as "solo", except when content can ONLY be done solo. The word I think you want is "soloable" and it makes sense that the best content will be the content most seen, so it will always be the "soloable" content.
You're saying that SWToR isn't crashing and burning?
I am saying it...I haven't lost one guild member since launch and I am seeing more people on my server everyday. The free weekends are bringing me more guild members and they are loving the game so far. I won't say they will stay, but they are playing non-stop right now.
Warhammer was a great concept, but the execution was horrible. I was so excited to play that game and I couldn't make it a month before I uninstalled it. I have been playing ToR since early beta and I still enjoy it.
So the other 75% of servers that are seeing big population drops don't exist? The thousands of posts on the official forums asking for server merges or transfers don't exist? The population trackers showing continued overall declines don't exist?
You offer evidence for just your server, but not all of them. By that VERY SAME logic WAR wasn't dying because the badlands server had a queue! The reason some servers are doing great is because the people on dying servers are either quitting or re-rolling on higher pop servers. Don't worry though! Just like WAR, eventually those low pop servers run out of people and then the high pop servers die off because of no new influx of people.
Also I'm the exact opposite. I played Warhammer from beta and 3 months after launch(My server died). The main issue with WAR was balancing, both classes and populations. The RvR mechanic needed some more fleshing out but the overall game was better than SWTOR I'd say. SWTOR on the other hand I played in beta and wasn't about to play on release. The game is just so boring, shallow, and lacks any sort of soul. I got characters to 40 and 50 in beta and did not see a single thing that made me believe it could hold me more than a month and the majority 3 months. Sorry, but I want an MMO that can hold me for a long time. I don't expect GW2 to have a years worth a content but at least I can come back and play whenever I want without a $15 barrier. If SWTOR had done the same I might have bought it, but EA and all that.
If this story hit my English 280 -- Creative Writing I class -- it'd have been lucky to get a 'C.' If it had been written in a upper-division creative writing class, it'd have gotten an F and the writer probably would have been left crying when s/he got her/his paper back...
And the teacher who is handing out those grades is most likely there because he/she could never make a living as a full time writer.
Yeah, that was low, but then so is knocking a video game based on Star Wars for not being Shakesphere.
They would probably be a decent judge of child like stories though.
Not sure what stories you read as a child, but none of the ones I read involved be-headings or murder in cold blood.
Hmm....I think they are too different to really judge like that, now I played WAR longer than I played TOR, but that was more to do with WAR's PvP, their crafting was non-existant pretty much at launch...Where TOR had crafting set, but most of it was pretty useless in the end....PvE...WAR had the PQs....hmm...I think I would give TOR a slight advantage on general PvE...
Both had things the other did, and were designed to be different, I liked WAR more, but it was a much bigger let down, as it was the last time I ever let someone sell my the hype sandwich....Those podcasts sounded so great, and the functions that werent there but were promised very quick never happend, for a long time, if ever...
I would say TOR delivered more on what they said they would do, than WAR did...I also went into TOR just to play with some friends, and I didn't have high expectations and wouldn't of probably played otherwise, where as WAR, I had a lot higher hopes...Would of thought people that did DAoC would of had a much better RvR system in place or would of fixed it quickly.
So imo WAR > TOR as a game, TOR > WAR for what they said they were going to deliver...Even though TORs world PvP is a disaster too...Or was....I am not playing anymore.
In that pile of pretentious drivel you call a post, I couldn't find an ounce of care.
Seriously, it's like nitpicking a sitcom as if it were a theorem. I feel stupider for having read that.
The next time somebody needs some kind of serious analysis done on saturday morning cartoons to maintain consistency, I'll let them know they've got a guy.
Are you sure you can actually feel stupider? That would be pretty impressive.
In his defense, he didn't write that pretentious drivel (oh oh I know what that means!) out of the blue. I think he was prompted to by someone who represents that "saturday morning cartoons" has good writing.
I mean, either it's "saturday morning cartoons" or it's good writing. Pick one, smaht one.
I agree. The PvP was much better, the classes more interesting and had cool things like PQs and defensive targets. SW:TOR is just bland and boring and would barely be playable without the single player storylines and of course the SW setting.
Warhammer didn't catch me on when I tried it out, same went for RIFT, unlike Aion which caught me on easily (can't remember why now). SWTOR I was eager to play when it was first announced back in 2006, of course it's because I'm a sci-fi and Star Wars fan. Now that I've played it for 3 months and cancelled my sub, I think I've gotten my money's worth, and the direction the devs are taking the game in which some people call it an equivalent of the "NGE".
Not having played Warhammer much, I can't say much about it, all I cay say about SWTOR is that the single player side of the game (quests) was done well, the multiplayer side of the game (pvp and some flashpoints) were poorly done and is exactly a grindfest when Bioware said it wouldn't be.
Warhammer was way funner than SWTOR. The PVP was so much better. Bioware totally dropped the ball with regards to the PVP in this game, it could of been epic. Instead we are left with a broken PVP planet and three tiny WZ's which you can't even pick the one you want to play in.
If they made SWTOR like Warhammer and made world pvp a part of the game from level one up, it would of been epic. I don't understand why they made pvp an after-thought when Jedi vs Sith is all about PVP. SMH.
Mythic had nothing to do with swtor. All the "real" mythic people are at pitchblack, arenanet, zenimax online etc..
The producer of Warhammer is now the producer of SWTOR
MMOs played: WoW, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Guild Wars, Planetside, Global Agenda, Star Trek Online, RIFT, Everquest 2, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EvE online, APB Best MMO Companies: Trion Worlds, ArenaNet, CCP Worst MMO Companies: Electronic Arts
WAR is one for the few MMOs wherein the systems just "feel right" -- animations are smooth and acurate; public group machanics and mechinisms are astonishingly good; the world feels open and not claustrophobic, like TOR; tons of cool nooks and crannies; PvP is blazingly fast and perfectly smooth; damage and balance is surprisingly good.
The only problem with WAR, atm, is it needs to go fully F2P.
Not the Warhammer I played. From a distance the animations looked like a bugs bunny cartoon with a lot of choppy movement. The animations were good up close, but the distance animations were just plain bad. And yes...I have a good computer to run it with.
I"ve almost come to the sad conclusion that all MMORPG developers who don't work for Blizzard are blind fools, especially when talking about LFD mechanics. I mean, all these other developers create games that are all so similar to WoW yet they refuse to take any lessons from Blizzard. I saw this in Rift and now I'm seeing it in SW:TOR. Game developers get on their high horse talking about preserving the community thus stating that they're against the idea of a dungeon finder. The community complains and people leave the game then the developers finally decide to implement a dungeon finder, but they hamstring it's success by stubbornly making it server-only, thus killing its usefulness on low-population servers. More people complain and more people leave before devs finally make it cross server -- something they should have designed the game around from day 1.
Not the Warhammer I played. From a distance the animations looked like a bugs bunny cartoon with a lot of choppy movement. The animations were good up close, but the distance animations were just plain bad. And yes...I have a good computer to run it with.
I"ve almost come to the sad conclusion that all MMORPG developers who don't work for Blizzard are blind fools, especially when talking about LFD mechanics. I mean, all these other developers create games that are all so similar to WoW yet they refuse to take any lessons from Blizzard. I saw this in Rift and now I'm seeing it in SW:TOR. Game developers get on their high horse talking about preserving the community thus stating that they're against the idea of a dungeon finder. The community complains and people leave the game then the developers finally decide to implement a dungeon finder, but they hamstring it's success by stubbornly making it server-only, thus killing its usefulness on low-population servers. More people complain and more people leave before devs finally make it cross server -- something they should have designed the game around from day 1.
Bio had no excuses going to this: they had the benefit of retrospect, seeing what worked and what didn't; they had the money to make it happen under veried circumstances.
I realize they will be adding a LFD tool, albeit within the server (rather weak decision not making it across servers... hopefully that will change).
They didn't go with a cross-server LFD tool because it takes time to develop. The LFD tool they're coming out is what they can do right away. I'm sure a cross-server one is in the works.
Consider that it took Trion Worlds a year to make it after 'sniping' the design from Blizzard and it took Blizzard Entertainment four years to get to a cross-server queue and another year to make a system that worked well.
WAR was actually terrible.
Mythic Studios did not make Star Wars: The Old Republic. People have to get that idea out of their head.
SWTOR was developed by a studio called "Bioware-Austin." When the game was mostly done the guys from Bioware-Mythic came in to do some finishing work on the PvP system.
Not that I'm taking any sides on this debate but you can't say swtor crashed and burned while it has 1.7 millions subs and growing(especially with their 1.2 about to hit).
Lol, now you are just messing with people. 1.7m and growing, boy, are you in for a shock if you are serious.
Actually, with no proof, he is just as likely to be right as you are to be right that the game is loosing subs. I have yet to see you actually posting any verifiable proof after all. Still, seeing as it is a new game and almost every new game looses subs after the initial "new shiny" wears off, I also doubt it is growing. Something tells me though it is no where's near as bad as people make it out to be though. Maybe it is the personal experience I have on 5 different servers now. Hard to say a game is crashing, when you actually play it and see server numbers maintaining (1 server) or actually growing (the other 4 servers) after all.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
You can disagree all you want, but Rose Colored Glasses aside, WAR did crash and burn. Something to keep in mind though, there is no such thing as "solo", except when content can ONLY be done solo. The word I think you want is "soloable" and it makes sense that the best content will be the content most seen, so it will always be the "soloable" content.
You're saying that SWToR isn't crashing and burning?
There is such a thing as solo:
When you're given content that can be done by a single player i.e. it was designed to be done by a single player, then the challenge vanishes when it is done by more than one player and its content becomes moot at that point, because what's the point of playing through something when it's easy?
I've been playing MMOs since MUDs and there is no point in calling content group content when the content can't be challenging when in a group.
It's analogous to only being given enough content for a level range and being overlvled for the remainder of the content.
If you just want to have an I-win button and not concern yourself with the actual gameplay, then why not read a story, or play good old D&D with friends?
Content should be ENGAGING and CHALLENGING, or it might as well not exist at all.
This is just completely untrue. Content does not have to be challenging at all for it to be enjoyable. Some people might get their enjoyment from the challenge, that is completely true, but i would bet the overwhelming majority are not those kind of people. In fact people always gravitate to the path of least resistance, you can see it time and time again in the majority of mmo's / games in general. Why do you think so few players raid compared to the number of players that casually play the levelling game? Levelling in most MMO's these days is not a challenge at all, yet generally it is by far the most played / most enjoyed content in an MMO.
I also agree with the original guy that solo content is content that can only be solo'd (ie. it cannot be done in a group). If it was designed to be done by 1 person but you can take in a full group then in my opinion its not solo content.
Not that I'm taking any sides on this debate but you can't say swtor crashed and burned while it has 1.7 millions subs and growing(especially with their 1.2 about to hit).
Lol, now you are just messing with people. 1.7m and growing, boy, are you in for a shock if you are serious.
Actually, with no proof, he is just as likely to be right as you are to be right that the game is loosing subs. I have yet to see you actually posting any verifiable proof after all. Still, seeing as it is a new game and almost every new game looses subs after the initial "new shiny" wears off, I also doubt it is growing. Something tells me though it is no where's near as bad as people make it out to be though. Maybe it is the personal experience I have on 5 different servers now. Hard to say a game is crashing, when you actually play it and see server numbers maintaining (1 server) or actually growing (the other 4 servers) after all.
There can be no proof until EA release the actual figures, but with all indicators pointing downwards, it suggests I am more likely to be right and the game is losing subs, the only real debate is the level of subs.
Here is the trend from ALL the US servers, the graph under the main one shows the trend since launch, the yellow light server is constantly increasing, full and heavy hot the bottom of the chart several months ago.
I realize they will be adding a LFD tool, albeit within the server (rather weak decision not making it across servers... hopefully that will change).
I personally am GLAD they're not doing a cross-server tool. This was not a weak decision but a very strong one on bioware's part and im happy that it will be single-server for atleast a while (im sure eventually it will go cross-server over the months/years).
Comments
I agree.
There is something missing from SWTOR.
...and say what you want about WAR PvE, the PvP element was some of the most fun i've ever had in a MMO.
Consumers have voted on WAR. I would interpret the vote as an unmitigated disaster for Mark Jacobs and company.
SWTOR....the voting is still in progress(how do I think it will come out....on a scale of 1-10.10 being the highest....in another year it will be a 5...in 2 years a 3.5)
Lol, now you are just messing with people. 1.7m and growing, boy, are you in for a shock if you are serious.So the other 75% of servers that are seeing big population drops don't exist? The thousands of posts on the official forums asking for server merges or transfers don't exist? The population trackers showing continued overall declines don't exist?
You offer evidence for just your server, but not all of them. By that VERY SAME logic WAR wasn't dying because the badlands server had a queue! The reason some servers are doing great is because the people on dying servers are either quitting or re-rolling on higher pop servers. Don't worry though! Just like WAR, eventually those low pop servers run out of people and then the high pop servers die off because of no new influx of people.
Also I'm the exact opposite. I played Warhammer from beta and 3 months after launch(My server died). The main issue with WAR was balancing, both classes and populations. The RvR mechanic needed some more fleshing out but the overall game was better than SWTOR I'd say. SWTOR on the other hand I played in beta and wasn't about to play on release. The game is just so boring, shallow, and lacks any sort of soul. I got characters to 40 and 50 in beta and did not see a single thing that made me believe it could hold me more than a month and the majority 3 months. Sorry, but I want an MMO that can hold me for a long time. I don't expect GW2 to have a years worth a content but at least I can come back and play whenever I want without a $15 barrier. If SWTOR had done the same I might have bought it, but EA and all that.
Not sure what stories you read as a child, but none of the ones I read involved be-headings or murder in cold blood.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Hmm....I think they are too different to really judge like that, now I played WAR longer than I played TOR, but that was more to do with WAR's PvP, their crafting was non-existant pretty much at launch...Where TOR had crafting set, but most of it was pretty useless in the end....PvE...WAR had the PQs....hmm...I think I would give TOR a slight advantage on general PvE...
Both had things the other did, and were designed to be different, I liked WAR more, but it was a much bigger let down, as it was the last time I ever let someone sell my the hype sandwich....Those podcasts sounded so great, and the functions that werent there but were promised very quick never happend, for a long time, if ever...
I would say TOR delivered more on what they said they would do, than WAR did...I also went into TOR just to play with some friends, and I didn't have high expectations and wouldn't of probably played otherwise, where as WAR, I had a lot higher hopes...Would of thought people that did DAoC would of had a much better RvR system in place or would of fixed it quickly.
So imo WAR > TOR as a game, TOR > WAR for what they said they were going to deliver...Even though TORs world PvP is a disaster too...Or was....I am not playing anymore.
Are you sure you can actually feel stupider? That would be pretty impressive.
In his defense, he didn't write that pretentious drivel (oh oh I know what that means!) out of the blue. I think he was prompted to by someone who represents that "saturday morning cartoons" has good writing.
I mean, either it's "saturday morning cartoons" or it's good writing. Pick one, smaht one.
I agree. The PvP was much better, the classes more interesting and had cool things like PQs and defensive targets. SW:TOR is just bland and boring and would barely be playable without the single player storylines and of course the SW setting.
My gaming blog
Warhammer didn't catch me on when I tried it out, same went for RIFT, unlike Aion which caught me on easily (can't remember why now). SWTOR I was eager to play when it was first announced back in 2006, of course it's because I'm a sci-fi and Star Wars fan. Now that I've played it for 3 months and cancelled my sub, I think I've gotten my money's worth, and the direction the devs are taking the game in which some people call it an equivalent of the "NGE".
Not having played Warhammer much, I can't say much about it, all I cay say about SWTOR is that the single player side of the game (quests) was done well, the multiplayer side of the game (pvp and some flashpoints) were poorly done and is exactly a grindfest when Bioware said it wouldn't be.
Warhammer was way funner than SWTOR. The PVP was so much better. Bioware totally dropped the ball with regards to the PVP in this game, it could of been epic. Instead we are left with a broken PVP planet and three tiny WZ's which you can't even pick the one you want to play in.
If they made SWTOR like Warhammer and made world pvp a part of the game from level one up, it would of been epic. I don't understand why they made pvp an after-thought when Jedi vs Sith is all about PVP. SMH.
The producer of Warhammer is now the producer of SWTOR
MMOs played: WoW, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Guild Wars, Planetside, Global Agenda, Star Trek Online, RIFT, Everquest 2, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, EvE online, APB
Best MMO Companies: Trion Worlds, ArenaNet, CCP
Worst MMO Companies: Electronic Arts
WAR is one for the few MMOs wherein the systems just "feel right" -- animations are smooth and acurate; public group machanics and mechinisms are astonishingly good; the world feels open and not claustrophobic, like TOR; tons of cool nooks and crannies; PvP is blazingly fast and perfectly smooth; damage and balance is surprisingly good.
The only problem with WAR, atm, is it needs to go fully F2P.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
Not the Warhammer I played. From a distance the animations looked like a bugs bunny cartoon with a lot of choppy movement. The animations were good up close, but the distance animations were just plain bad. And yes...I have a good computer to run it with.
No. WAR was bad. Very bad. Especially since the obvious target audience were former DAoC players.
Althogh, I did subscribe longer to WAR, but that is because my patience with crap MMOs is even lower now than 3 years ago.
I"ve almost come to the sad conclusion that all MMORPG developers who don't work for Blizzard are blind fools, especially when talking about LFD mechanics. I mean, all these other developers create games that are all so similar to WoW yet they refuse to take any lessons from Blizzard. I saw this in Rift and now I'm seeing it in SW:TOR. Game developers get on their high horse talking about preserving the community thus stating that they're against the idea of a dungeon finder. The community complains and people leave the game then the developers finally decide to implement a dungeon finder, but they hamstring it's success by stubbornly making it server-only, thus killing its usefulness on low-population servers. More people complain and more people leave before devs finally make it cross server -- something they should have designed the game around from day 1.
Now you can consider youself informed.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
im only going to say this from a PVP Point of View.
ok if War is just above dog shit then Star wars is below dog shit.[mod edit]
Bio had no excuses going to this: they had the benefit of retrospect, seeing what worked and what didn't; they had the money to make it happen under veried circumstances.
http://wyrdblogging.blogspot.com/
I played WAR much longer than I played TOR. WAR, 1 year on and off. TOR, 1 month.
In other words I had more fun in WAR than I did in TOR but that's only normal since I'm into PvP and not at all into PvE.
Does that mean one is better than the other? No, apples and oranges. One is a PvP mmorpg, the other is...something else.
They didn't go with a cross-server LFD tool because it takes time to develop. The LFD tool they're coming out is what they can do right away. I'm sure a cross-server one is in the works.
Consider that it took Trion Worlds a year to make it after 'sniping' the design from Blizzard and it took Blizzard Entertainment four years to get to a cross-server queue and another year to make a system that worked well.
WAR was actually terrible.
Mythic Studios did not make Star Wars: The Old Republic. People have to get that idea out of their head.
SWTOR was developed by a studio called "Bioware-Austin." When the game was mostly done the guys from Bioware-Mythic came in to do some finishing work on the PvP system.
Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/users/thetroublmaker
Actually, with no proof, he is just as likely to be right as you are to be right that the game is loosing subs. I have yet to see you actually posting any verifiable proof after all. Still, seeing as it is a new game and almost every new game looses subs after the initial "new shiny" wears off, I also doubt it is growing. Something tells me though it is no where's near as bad as people make it out to be though. Maybe it is the personal experience I have on 5 different servers now. Hard to say a game is crashing, when you actually play it and see server numbers maintaining (1 server) or actually growing (the other 4 servers) after all.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
This is just completely untrue. Content does not have to be challenging at all for it to be enjoyable. Some people might get their enjoyment from the challenge, that is completely true, but i would bet the overwhelming majority are not those kind of people. In fact people always gravitate to the path of least resistance, you can see it time and time again in the majority of mmo's / games in general. Why do you think so few players raid compared to the number of players that casually play the levelling game? Levelling in most MMO's these days is not a challenge at all, yet generally it is by far the most played / most enjoyed content in an MMO.
I also agree with the original guy that solo content is content that can only be solo'd (ie. it cannot be done in a group). If it was designed to be done by 1 person but you can take in a full group then in my opinion its not solo content.
Lol, now you are just messing with people. 1.7m and growing, boy, are you in for a shock if you are serious.
Actually, with no proof, he is just as likely to be right as you are to be right that the game is loosing subs. I have yet to see you actually posting any verifiable proof after all. Still, seeing as it is a new game and almost every new game looses subs after the initial "new shiny" wears off, I also doubt it is growing. Something tells me though it is no where's near as bad as people make it out to be though. Maybe it is the personal experience I have on 5 different servers now. Hard to say a game is crashing, when you actually play it and see server numbers maintaining (1 server) or actually growing (the other 4 servers) after all.
There can be no proof until EA release the actual figures, but with all indicators pointing downwards, it suggests I am more likely to be right and the game is losing subs, the only real debate is the level of subs.
http://www.torstatus.net/shards/us/trends
Here is the trend from ALL the US servers, the graph under the main one shows the trend since launch, the yellow light server is constantly increasing, full and heavy hot the bottom of the chart several months ago.I personally am GLAD they're not doing a cross-server tool. This was not a weak decision but a very strong one on bioware's part and im happy that it will be single-server for atleast a while (im sure eventually it will go cross-server over the months/years).